DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum R U sure you want change???

Quote:

---

You know Pit, I was talking about some of the promises the Dems make and then everyone with half a brain should know they are a bunch of liars.

---

So where do claims of "Tons of stockpiles of WMD" and a "nuclear weapons program" fall into your "fact check category" as? True or false?

Slick Willie isn't the only lying politician. Or the only "party" spreading such falsehoods on the American system.

The system is broken on both sides of the aisle. That's the point. NOBODY has the "morality" issue cornered. Both are just as crooked and full of false promises. Just ask the moral majority how many of "Bushes promises to them" he has kept.


They're ALL politicians and they ALL lie! Wheather it be by accident or design, the results are the same. Poor judgement.

Quote:

---

I asked where the terrorist training camps were in this coutnry.

---

Again...what?

Am I to assume you're saying I stated this?

I'm sure there are certainly terrorist training camps in this country - backwoods militia units and such...but it's certainly not very prevalent and it's not government initiated. Our training for terrorist tactics and regimes often takes place in other countries, and is comprimised of the disgruntled populations of Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Iraq, etc. Most of the time it's comprimised of funding, arms, and C.I.A. training.

Quote:

---

Yes, it is an OPINION based on hindsight. I asked why he stalled. You gave an opinion....unless you were there and talked to Saddam or those documents you are alluding to STATE why he did. Of course, they don't, but that doesn't stop you from trying to claim they do

---

I'm going to say one more time - this is not my opinion. This is a conclusion made by just about every intelligence committee and commission, both U.S. and foreign, after Hussein's palaces and offices were ransacked. He had no programs. He wasn't reconstituting programs. He didn't have weapons, nor a weapons lab. His tight lips and run arounds with the U.N. were his feeble attempt to keep Iran and Israel from discovering that he was vulernable. This has been stated by Iraqi generals, Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi officers, Hussein, U.N. officials, U.S. officials, U.S. investigative committees, U.S. intelligence sectors, etc., etc.

I thought you would know all this, having read the intelligence reports and such.

Quote:

---

What I believe,is that there were WMDs that were unaccounted for. Not that the are still hidden there, or that we secretly found them and covered it up. The fact is he wasn't open and honest about them after the Gulf War. He never really changed his tune. All he had to do was be open with all the inspectors the entire time, and there would have been zero basis for us to assume he was hiding something. We still would have taken him out, but it would have been for another reason.

---

So he scared the hell out of the American people to "garner support" for an unwarranted war. The people of the U.S. nor the U.N. would have stood beside Bush had "the truth been known". The U.N. knew better. And what do they get for being RIGHT!???

Bad mouthed by the 18% that "still believe".

Quote:

---

I thought you would know all this, having read the intelligence reports and such.

---

He would if he had. He wouldn't if he didn't.

2+2=4

Quote:

---

He doesn't take a dime from lobbyists which IMO is a HUGE sign of character.

---

I have a bridge to sell you. Why do you people believe these guys on face value when they talk?


Published on Sunday, April 22, 2007 by Los Angeles Times
Obama’s Refusal of Lobbyists’ Money Has its Limits
by Dan Morain

WASHINGTON - While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital.Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from “federal lobbyists.” His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.

But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.

“Clearly, the distinction is not that significant,” said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

“He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different,” Weissman said. “But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.”

Quote:

---

Why do you people believe these guys on face value when they talk?

---

Quote:

---

Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

---

Probably some right wing, neo-nazi group spearheaded by Karl Rove...

Quote:

---

We have sunk billions of dollars into terrorist regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Israel, Haiti, Iraq...the list goes on. We support brutal and treacherous dictators who use violence as a means to frighten and control the population.

---

Quote:

---

Sigh, you really pretend that you have a clue. .

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

---

Probably some right wing, neo-nazi group spearheaded by Karl Rove...

---

You think the LA Times would publish it if he were?

Quote:

---

Please provide a link that shows for a FACT that Saddam was posturing to save face iwth other countries when he was stalling and delaying weapons inspectors. I'm sure you can do that since you have such in depth knowledge of this and deny making accusations with no proof. Stop your little games and provide the links showing you OPINOIN as fact.

---

Alright, Coach, read carefully - fourth time - it is not my opinion. This is the conclusion of the U.S., the U.N., the C.I.A., UNMOVIC, the IAEA, The Duelfer Reports, The Senate Select Committee Reports...it's pretty common knowledge at this point.

Here is a small excerpt from the Senate Select Committee Report (I believe it cited in recently in another thread):

Saddam decided to abandon his weapons programs because the economy and infrasstructure of Iraq were collapsing under the weight of the sanctions. Saddam therefore ordered the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons stockpiles in 1991 and chose to focus on securing sanction relief before resuming WMD development. At the same time, in an effort to project power - both domestically and against percieved regional threats such as Iran and Israel - Iraq chose to obfuscate whether it actually possessed WMD."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

Why don't you go read up on the Iraq War a little bit and come back to me when you're done.

Quote:

---

Sigh, you really pretend that you have a clue. I stated that that Iraq supported terrorists and that they had terroist training camps in Iraq. You jumped in proclaiming we were just as guilty. So I asked you where these government sponsored terroist training camps were here in the U.S. You continued to ignore that because you wanted to keep your filibuster going.

---

Quote:

---

It was not just Bush that sent us to war. Congress voted on it. Not just Republicans either. These are points that you fail to bring up in your constant bashing of Bush. I would think you wouldn't do that since you don't like double standards.

---

Quote:

---

They were being jerked around to the very last days.

---

Quote:

---

We throughout the whole military. I liked the idea at the time because they were the ones committing the attrocites. Turned out that was a bad decision.

---

Quote:

---

Otherwise it just proves that we can be waited out.

---

Quote:

---

What do YOU think would replace the Saudi Royal family?

---

Quote:

---

Then why did Clinton bomb in 1998 and state:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. " ????

---

Probably because the word 'Lewinsky' wasn't anywhere in the sentence.

Quote:

---

Do you EVER know how to answer a question? Here is the question I've asked since the beginnning of your ramblings.

Please provide anything that states it is a FACT that Saddam stalled and delayed weapons inspectors to keep from looking bad to Iran and other countries.

I don't see anywhere any documents substantiating your claim. I do see where someone SAID that, but I don't see where they point to records that is the case. They drew a "conclusion", just as you did. That doesn't mean it's a fact. For someone so hung up on semantics, you sure ignore them when you are trying to make yourself look right in stating "conclusions" IE opinions, as fact.

So, I'll try again. Please provide a link showing your statement is a FACT....not an opinion, not a conclusion drawn by anyone, but actual FACT. I know the concept of facts eludes you, but try just this once....then get bac to me

---

Why don't you prove to me the sky is blue, Coach? Give me some FACTS and not just the OPINION of everyone who looks up above.

You lost this one, bud. I'll see ya in another thread.

Quote:

---

People fighting for their freedom on their home turf will *almost* always win out against mercenary armies.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What do YOU think would replace the Saudi Royal family?

---

Hopefully people who don't behead gays in public and give people lots of money to fly planes into American buildings.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, he did. Saddam had such an ego, and thought we wouldn't do anything to him. I guess he was wrong. I'm pretty sure other two bit dictators will now think twice before provoking us.

---

Quote:

---

Also, the UN thought the inspections were still needed. How does that square with he had no WMDs? They were being jerked around to the very last days.

---

Quote:

---

One more thing...I don't want what we do predicated on what someone else tells us. I want our government to act on what they feel is needed. We had intelligence, it was bad....Strike that, it was awful. There was conflicting evidence, we chose what we felt was the more prudent path.

---

Quote:

---

It was not just Bush that sent us to war. Congress voted on it. Not just Republicans either. These are points that you fail to bring up in your constant bashing of Bush. I would think you wouldn't do that since you don't like double standards.

---

I don't support Hillary either.


And I make it obvious that I had a great distaste of Bill Clinton and NAFTA. But a lot of people choose to ignore that. And you can say what you will, there's only "one man" who deployed our troops. Not congress. They gave him permission to do what "he felt was needed". And off we went. I think that Congress was guilty of handing him over such power.

Yet now, if congress tries to stop funding, they're labeled as traiters. So no matter what they did or didn't do, most wouldn't find them any "less" guilty.

Quote:

---

The fact is you should be more ticked off at Congress. They had the exact same intel. Even if we were lied to by Bush, the Congress should have known better. The fact is (according to Phil) most didn't even read the intel. I find that much scarier.

---

Quote:

---

I know you don't support the war, and thought we should have never gone. I can respect that.

---

Quote:

---

The problem I have had is the total mis-management since the get go. After we ousted Saddam, everything we did seemed to be wrong. We throughout the whole military. I liked the idea at the time because they were the ones committing the attrocites. Turned out that was a bad decision.

---

Quote:

---

The whole prision system we set up was a fiasco. The lack of troops to secure the border, another mistake.

---

Quote:

---

The thing is people like you think McCain will be nothing more then a Bush third term. Please. McCain has fought the admin. every step of the way.

---

Far more eight years ago than today.

Quote:

---

He knows that the only way to leave Iraq is to make sure it's stable. Leaving now will only embolden Iran and Al Qaeda. They will just look at it as further proof that we have no will to fight. We need to finish the mission. If all we wanted was to oust Saddam, and leave Iraq in turmoil, we should have left right after we caught him.

---

I know you are very well meaning. And I understand and respect that this is your honest beliefs on the situation.

But I beg to differ. Firstly, I have stated and will continue to state that John McCain is a FAR better alternative to GWB. They are not "clones" of each other.

But politics is politics. McCain HAS changed his views to be "much closer" to that of Bush on some levels. Look at what happenned in 2000 when he tried "being himself". He was labeled as everything from mentaly incompitant, to having an illegitimate black baby by HIS OWN PARTY!

So yes, he's had to do a little backpeddling and throw a change up here and there. But I do believe he is sincere in trying to do what he feels is best for our country. There may be many trying to smear McCain, but I am not one of them. As long as Hillary doesn't get elected, I feel we'll be better off after the election than we are now.

See, here's what I believe "emboldens the enemy".

Having wars on two fronts with a volunteer military. We simply don't have the forces to increase to three fronts. We're pretty much hog tied NOW!

Knowing we "wrongly invaded Iraq" based on falsehoods and CONTINUING the same mistake. Bush didn't claim "He had WMD". He claimed that "he had 'TONS of STOCKPILES of WMD". ( see how much scarier that sounds? )


He claimed that he had a nuclear program. He did not. So the entire planet sees what we did. They see us as too pompous to admit our mistake. They see us as "perpetuating" that mistake by our continued presence in Iraq.

Let me ask you this.........................................

If you were Iran, would you be MORE scared if the U.S. had 160,000 troops "ready to strike"? Or would you be more scared if they were "already busy somewhere else"?

I understand that you are sincere, but have you given what I asked any serious consideration

Quote:

---

Leaving now will end up with the same result, with the exception of countless wasted lives and showing the lack of American resolve.

---

Quote:

---

This is a pattern we have repeated over and over. Our poloticians have no stomach to finish what we start. Lebanon, Somalia and Iraq. We decide to cut and run when the going gets tough. Once we decide to get invoved, we need to actually finish. Otherwise it just proves that we can be waited out.

---

Quote:

---

We are at war on two fronts now with a volunteer Army strapped as it is to have enough boots on the ground. So how do those circumstances "detour" anyone?

---

Quote:

---

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking."

---

Quote:

---

Who is "we"? Did you know that the "overwhelming evicence" pointed in the other direction and was ignored? So you feel ignoring the rest of the entire planets opinion and intel is a "wise avenue to follow"? If so, how can we or will we be "the world leader" of anything other than a dictatorship?

---

Quote:

---

And I make it obvious that I had a great distaste of Bill Clinton and NAFTA.

---

Quote:

---

I do however support the war in Afghanastan. I think it is undermanned and underfunded on this "diversion war" in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Far more eight years ago than today.

---

Quote:

---

If you were Iran, would you be MORE scared if the U.S. had 160,000 troops "ready to strike"? Or would you be more scared if they were "already busy somewhere else"?

---

Quote:

---

So even when our "reasons for war" were wrong, just keep perpetuating it? I can see what you're saying in the cases where we were "right to begin with". But when we were "wrong to begin with", you suggest it to be the same thing? That's what I simply do not understand.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

We are at war on two fronts now with a volunteer Army strapped as it is to have enough boots on the ground. So how do those circumstances "detour" anyone?

---

You don't always need troops. We have shown a willingness to attack anyone, anywhere. The use of air power can work at times.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking."

---

I don't give a crap about what Blix said. I didn't trust him then, and don't now.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Who is "we"? Did you know that the "overwhelming evicence" pointed in the other direction and was ignored? So you feel ignoring the rest of the entire planets opinion and intel is a "wise avenue to follow"? If so, how can we or will we be "the world leader" of anything other than a dictatorship?

---

I don't think it was slanted overwhelmingly against what Bush thought.

---

Phil has posted links to the majority of the intel on this very board many times. Did you bother reading it or looking at it? Or are you only going on "what you think"? I'm just wondering. Because the vast majority of the intel contradicted the Bush administrations assertions.

Quote:

---

I really could care less about what other countries thought or said when it comes to intel. How many countries do you really think have any clue about Iraq? Considering that Russia and France were illegally dealing with Saddam, I put zero faith in whatever they had to say. Britian acttually claimed to have better intelligence then us when it came to what was happening in Africa. Israel has probably the best intelligence service of any nation, but I would be very leary of what they had to say.

---

So other than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their cronies, who do you trust?


That's another thing that troubles me. We have reached a point in the last seven years that "we trust no one". Not even our allies. Sort of pits us against the planet doesn't it? I mean if you "trust no one"?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I do however support the war in Afghanastan. I think it is undermanned and underfunded on this "diversion war" in Iraq.

---

I don't know how undermanned we are in Afganastan. It would be nearly impossible to close off their border. It is a very difficult to cover that kind of terrain. Large mechanized divisions just won't work. The only way to police the area is with light infantry and the use of helicopters. I am not an expert on infantry, but what is needed fits right up the alley of special forces. Those happen to be the very troops that we are using.

---

I can't help but look at the basic math. Most things either add up, or they don't. We were attacked on 9/11 by a guy in Afghanastan. So we use less than one third of our military strength to go "after the perpitrator" and over two thirds of our military in a totaly unrelated nation who was weak to start with.

It would be interesting to KNOW exactly "how they're training our troops now". Because that would go a long way in telling us "where they are preparing them to fight", wouldn't it?


You see, in seven years, you can "train your recruits" to fight in any environment. Be that mountains or deserts. Wonder "where" they're training them to fight?

Maybe in that country NOT related to 9/11? But you don't have a problem with that?

Sorry, but I do. I want Bin Ladin. I want to show what we SHOULD be showing. That if you bomb us, kill our civilians, harm our home land, we will come after you with ALL OF OUR MIGHT!

A message many have forgotten about by "unneeded distractions", IMO

Quote:

---

The war is over. It's done. What we are now doing is building the peace. We have made the mess that Iraq is today. We need to do the right thing and stay their until they can stand on their own. We removed their government (a very cruel one, but their government nontheless) and to leave them in chaos after we promised them we wouldn't is wrong.

---

Quote:

---

That is an oversimplification of what is happening.

---

Quote:

---

We need to make sure the country is stable.

---

Quote:

---

He is the only true moderate in this race. He also is the only canidate who has actually reached cross the aisle to get things done. All politicians talk a good game, yet McCain has backed up his words by reaching across the aisle and not adding pork.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you were Iran, would you be MORE scared if the U.S. had 160,000 troops "ready to strike"? Or would you be more scared if they were "already busy somewhere else"?

---

If the 160,000 troops were sitting on my border, I'd be very scared. Iran is a very difficult country to invade. They have a short shoreline, and a small area of land to attack from if we use Kuwait. With troops in Iraq, Iran is much more vulnerable. There simply is too much border for them to have to protect against. We do not have enough troops to keep control of Iran. We do have enough to blitz the hell out of them. I would not be interested in rebuilding Iran. I would be just peachy if we can demolish their military and weapon stock piles.

---

Which is pretty much the EXACT sentiment that many had about Iraq. Well, until after we dethroned Sadaam of course.


And can you tell me what happens in Iraq while these troops go to Iran? So the same 160,000 troops can handle BOTH wars? That's the point. They aren't in Iraq playing shuffle board waiting to be deployed into Iran. They're fighting a war NOW.

Quote:

---

The war is over. It's done. What we are now doing is building the peace.

---

Then somebody needs to tell the other guys. Cause body bags are still being sent home. And Bush still calls it a war. So you better send him a memo too.

Quote:

---

We have made the mess that Iraq is today. We need to do the right thing and stay their until they can stand on their own. We removed their government (a very cruel one, but their government nontheless) and to leave them in chaos after we promised them we wouldn't is wrong.

---

You keep using "we" again. So it's your contention that if one administration makes "critical errors" in the reasons for war, the next administration is bound to uphold it? Because every time I mention the rest of the globe, you dismiss it. Be it their opinions, their intel, etc........

Yet now, you believe we should send them a message? In case you've missed it, maybe we should address those who "attack us" more harshly than those who have not. That is a message I could support 100%.

Quote:

---

In other words, there are no documents that were found to prove the "conclusions" you are referring to.

---